In 2023, India amended Competition Act, 2002 (Section 27(b)), and in 2024 the CCI issued updated penalty guidelines, introducing a controversial mechanism: fines may now be calculated on a company’s global turnover, not just its revenue from India or from relevant products/services.
- Under the amended law, the CCI can impose penalties of up to 10% of the average turnover (over the past three years) on firms found guilty of anti-competitive practices or abuse of dominance — based on global revenues.
- Apple claims this amendment and the resulting penalty framework are unlawful and disproportionate when applied to multinational firms whose global revenue vastly exceeds their India-specific operations. The company argues that fines should be tied to India-relevant turnover — not worldwide sales.
📄 The Court Case — What Apple Is Asking For
- Apple filed a petition in the Delhi High Court (case: Apple Inc & Anr vs Union of India & Anr), naming the Union of India and the CCI as respondents.
- The challenge argues the provision allowing global-turnover based penalties violates principles of proportionality and fairness — potentially leading to excessively high fines unrelated to the company’s India footprint.
- The matter is scheduled to be heard before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
🌏 Why This Case Matters — For Multinationals and India’s Regulatory Regime
🔹 Big Tech and Global Companies Under Pressure
Because global-turnover-based fines could be enormous, multinational firms operating in India now face the risk of disproportionately heavy penalties — even if their India revenue is small compared to global revenue. Apple’s challenge may set a precedent that affects not just it, but other big global tech firms subject to CCI scrutiny.
🔹 Importance for Fairness and Proportionality in Antitrust Enforcement
A ruling in Apple’s favor would reinforce the principle that penalties must be proportionate to the scale of operations within India — not worldwide — and may lead to revisions in how global firms are penalised.
🔹 Impact on Future CCI Investigations and Compliance Costs
If the law is upheld as-is, foreign companies may face higher compliance costs, more cautious business strategies, or even reconsider operations in India. If struck down or limited, CCI may need to recalibrate its penalty framework, possibly relying only on India-specific turnover for fines.
🔎 Broader Context — What Changed in 2023–24
- Before the amendment, penalties under competition law were applied based on “relevant turnover” — usually India or product-specific revenue, in line with earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- The 2023 amendment’s Explanation 2 broadened “turnover” definition to include global turnover derived from all products and services — a major change that many multinationals found alarming.
- In 2024, the CCI’s revised Monetary Penalty Guidelines formalised how this global-turnover basis would be used — triggering legal and corporate concern. Moneycontrol
✅ What to Watch — Possible Outcomes & Implications
- If Delhi HC strikes down/limits global-turnover penalties: That could curb CCI’s ability to impose large fines and recalibrate antitrust enforcement — especially for foreign firms.
- If HC upholds the rule: Firms may need to reassess India risk exposure, increase compliance, or set aside significant contingent liabilities.
- Precedent for future cases (big tech, platform economy): The judgment may shape how antitrust cases — especially involving global firms — are handled in India for years.
- Impact on investor sentiment and foreign firms’ India strategy: Depending on outcome, may influence investment, operations, or how firms structure their revenue and compliance setups in India.
📌 Conclusion
Apple’s decision to approach the Delhi High Court against India’s global-turnover penalty rule is significant. It tests whether India’s competition law should penalise firms based on worldwide revenue or only India-relevant business — and could reshape antitrust enforcement for multinational corporations across India.
Regardless of the outcome, the case highlights the tension between stricter regulatory ambitions and fair treatment of global enterprises. What happens next will be closely watched by Big Tech, regulators, and the courts alike.
